Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Roman Emperor

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Praxus
    This said, I chose M. Aurelius.
    Over Augustus???????????????

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
      In my view, Caesar was murdered by jealous underlings that coveted and resented his power. Julius Caesar was a brilliant general, a populist (at least ostensibly), and an able administrator.
      That's a hell of a lot of words to say Dictator.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        That's a hell of a lot of words to say Dictator.
        Ah, but then sometimes simply saying Dictator isn't enough. Such a derogatory term must be explained by someone for the benefit of all.
        [Wasting Space]

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Chap
          The Emp. Julian (The Appostate) Four years. saved the bloody Empire. Ask Gibbon. I refuse to vote otherwise.
          First, I am pleased that there is new activity on my thread. I have been negligent about checking it and I will get back to all of your comments about the Roman Emperors.

          For now, though, I will put in a brief comment about Julian.

          Julian was a great Emperor. In his short reign he proved himself to be an able administrator and one of the great, but most unrecognized, miltary commanders of late antiquity. His defeat of the Germans at Strasbourg in 357 AD and his great campaign against the Sassanids are the most noteworthy exploits of his. However, he foolishly risked his life and he was killed outside of Ctesiphon in 363. His timid successor, Jovian, was forced to cede considerable territory to the Persians. Therefore, I cannot agree with your claim that he saved the Empire. Had he lived longer, he may have. Since he did not, he only deserves mention as one of potential greats that litter history.

          Comment


          • #35
            Trajan,

            It would seem that your user name forbids you to vote for any other emperor than Trajan. Nonetheless, I do agree that Trajan was an excellent ruler. My impression is that you are well-acquainted with his reign, so I do not need to go into too many details of his excellence.

            I favor Augustus over Trajan because the former initiated the Principate. Augustus was responsible for laying the foundation of the Empire. Trajan, while great, inherited a significant amount of his power, both literally via Nerva and more abstractly via the established imperial system. Augustus reigns supreme because of his innovation.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by M21Sniper
              That's a hell of a lot of words to say Dictator.
              Dictatorship can be justifiable and desirable if the Dicatator is capable and has his people's interest at heart.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
                Dictatorship can be justifiable and desirable if the Dicatator is capable and has his people's interest at heart.
                Cincinnatus comes to mind.
                When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Amled
                  Cincinnatus comes to mind
                  That guy had good PR. Come on he was repsonsible more than anyone for the divison between Patrician and Plebian by his opposition of Gaius Terentilius Harsa's code granting equality.

                  I voted Trajan, I believe that if he had lived 5 more years then the Romans would have handed the Persians that decicive (read conquering) defeat that they otherwise seemed unable to. The only one after him who came as close was Septimius Severus. Speaking of old Septimius, how come he is not on the list? Come on the the Romans would never again until Herculius's time inflict such a decicive defeat on the Persians if ever. And you should not hold Caracalla against him, anymore than you should hold Marcus Aurelius responsible for Commudus.
                  Last edited by sparten; 21 Apr 06,, 18:15.
                  "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Bulgar,
                    What do you think would have happened if the Persians had been conquered. It would have opened up India, Central Asia and ultimatly China to the Romans.

                    I suppose they would have taken India up to the River Indus a part that was Hellenized as it was at the time. I also belive they would have eventually come into conflict with China.

                    I did read a parently ridiculous article theorizing that the Roaman would have reached the South China Sea and then attempted to conquer Japan.
                    Most likely IMO, it would be like what actually happened with the Arabs a half millenium later. They would be a Battle Talas type incident which would bring Central Asia into the Empire. But like the Arabs they would probably conclude that the Chinese were alot more valuable as trading partners then as subjects, though again like the Arabs they might take parts of China.
                    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by sparten
                      Bulgar,
                      What do you think would have happened if the Persians had been conquered. It would have opened up India, Central Asia and ultimatly China to the Romans.

                      I suppose they would have taken India up to the River Indus a part that was Hellenized as it was at the time. I also belive they would have eventually come into conflict with China.

                      I did read a parently ridiculous article theorizing that the Roaman would have reached the South China Sea and then attempted to conquer Japan.
                      Most likely IMO, it would be like what actually happened with the Arabs a half millenium later. They would be a Battle Talas type incident which would bring Central Asia into the Empire. But like the Arabs they would probably conclude that the Chinese were alot more valuable as trading partners then as subjects, though again like the Arabs they might take parts of China.
                      The answer to your question depends upon the time period that this hypothetical Roman conquest took place. That being said, a few things could have happened.

                      If the Romans conquered the Parthians, who were not strictly Persian, in the second century, then I think Roman armies could have gone far to the East. It is possible that under a leader like Trajan, the Romans would have reached the same region that Alexander had fought in so many centuries earlier. Going even further, it is possible that the Romans could have launched expeditions into India, but not much farther.

                      I think the main limiting factor is the slow rate of transportation in the ancient world. The Romans were able to solve this problem to a certain extent by building their impressive road system. However, I think even the Romans would have been hard-pressed to maintain an Empire stretching from Britain to India. Of course, miraculous things could have been possible.

                      As to the Romans conquering China? I think that is very unlikely. At the very most they could have launched an exploratory army, but a land invasion of China from Persia requires traversing a series of mountains. Depending on what route they took, the Romans would have to cross the Hindu Kush, Pamirs, Tien Shan, or even the Himalayas if they really wanted to make it difficult. After those mountains, the Romans would have to contend with uncharted desert territory for at least 1500 kilometres before they reached any Chinese settlements of value. Any military campaign that did get across those mountains would find itself deprived of reinforcements, supplies, even basic supplies like food and water. You can see the immense problems that build up.

                      You must also consider the fact that a Roman Emperor could never venture too far from the capital and expect to maintain his rule. Even though Trajan was able to be on campaign for long periods of time, but he never went farther than Mesopotamia. If a Roman Emperor had traveled to India or China, he probably would never see the capital again. Of course, it is not essential that the Emperor command this hypothetical Asian invasion and other generals could accomplish the task.

                      In all, it is really hard to say what would have happened if Persia fell. I expect that the Romans would have sacked most of the major cities of the realm, marched to India, and then turned back. The most important consequence for the Romans, would be that they had destroyed their most deadly opponent in the East. Therefore, after the decimation of Persia, a Roman emperor could have invested more troops in wars with the Germans. There are many possibilties. Perhaps the Romans would have set up Persia as a client state, similar to how the Seleucids ran the area after Alexander's death.

                      Returning to my earlier point that all of this depends on the date. I think it was only in the first, second, and perhaps third century that Rome could hope to occupy the Parthian or Sassanid empires. For example, although people like Julian and Heraclius beat the Persians in important battles, they were unable to capitalize on their victories and invade the Persian Empire itself. There are a number of reasons for this, including the facts that the Empire was becoming more divided in the fourth and fifth centuries, the Empire apparently had problems allocating resources and funding major expeditions, and the Empire was pressed by Germans in a large way. All of these things meant that a conquest of Persia was unlikely.

                      Of course, by Heraclius' time, the Western half of the Empire had fallen. Heraclius was pressed in the Balkans and Italy and could not afford to allocate the necessary troops to a full occupation of Persia. As Justinian's expensive Gothic Wars proved, the Eastern Empire had the wealth and resources to defend itself but not carry out overseas conquests.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I thought so as much.
                        "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Ahem!

                          Originally posted by sparten
                          I thought so as much.
                          Still no Julian then? Poof.
                          Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bulgaroctonus
                            Trajan,

                            It would seem that your user name forbids you to vote for any other emperor than Trajan. Nonetheless, I do agree that Trajan was an excellent ruler. My impression is that you are well-acquainted with his reign, so I do not need to go into too many details of his excellence.

                            I favor Augustus over Trajan because the former initiated the Principate. Augustus was responsible for laying the foundation of the Empire. Trajan, while great, inherited a significant amount of his power, both literally via Nerva and more abstractly via the established imperial system. Augustus reigns supreme because of his innovation.
                            *chuckles* Indeed, I am afraid that your first statement is true, but only so far. Augustus was indeed a great Emperor and did infact lay the foundation of the Empire and those who would follow. However I find his lack of control over his wife, who concernated to involve herself in Imperial affairs, to be rather distasteful.

                            I agree that Trajan's rise was rather more 'smooth' than others, but then I guess so was Augustus's, in concern to after Anthony was defeated, the Senate offering no resistence. Which is why I previously stated that Augustus was a Emperor of circumstance. :)
                            [Wasting Space]

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Sorry Chap, no Julian the apostate. Quite apart form the "theological difficulties" we may have was his ill-timed invasion of Iraq. That more than anything doomed the empire.

                              I would have voted Herculius, and he gets 10 out of 10 for turning the table on the Persians so suddely and decicively, but loes 9 of them for his handleing of the whole Arab threat. I mena its kind of Pathetic to put the true cross back in Jerusalum, only to have to run away with it 5 years later.

                              And I repeat, where the hell is Sepitimus Severus.
                              "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                oh well

                                [QUOTE=sparten]Sorry Chap, no Julian the apostate.

                                Got to vote for Marc, then. That said, I do have Trajan sympathy.
                                Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X